Here's a shocker (not): Fox Nation's article (which I recently posted was hyped as part of its "acquittal" of George Zimmerman) states that a "blockbuster" witness testified to seeing punches thrown down "MMA-style" by Trayvon Martin. In fact, the witness, John Good, testified that he did not see punches thrown.

A resident of the Florida community where George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin last year after a confrontation took the stand Friday and described going out to investigate a noise and seeing one person straddling another with and throwing punches thrown down "MMA-style" the person on the ground.

...Under questioning by Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda, Good said one of the combatants was straddling a man lying face up on the pavement, and throwing punches. The testimony appeared to corroborate Zimmerman's claims that he shot the 17-year-old African-American with a legally registered gun in self defense, as he was being pummeled.

"I could tell that the person on the bottom had a lighter skin color," testified Good, who also said the person on the bottom appeared to be wearing "white or red," while the one on top wore dark clothing. Zimmerman identified that day as Hispanic and was wearing a red jacket. That also would corroborate Zimmerman's claims he was on the losing end of a violent confrontation when he fired the fatal shot.

Besides the fact that Fox throws in a few sympathetic-to-Zimmerman comments such as noting that his gun was "legally registered" and that the testimony "corroborates Zimmerman's claims he was on the losing end of a violent confrontation," Fox got one crucial fact wrong and underplayed another one.

The crucial fact: Good did not say Martin was "throwing punches." He specifically said he could not confirm that. From CBS News:

The altercation seemed to escalate, according to Good. The struggle moved to the cement pathway, and he said the person in dark clothing straddled the other man in "mixed martial arts position" he later described to police as a "ground and pound." He said he saw "arm movements going downward," though he couldn't be certain the person on top was striking the person on the bottom.

"The person you now know to be Trayvon Martin was on top, correct?" asked defense attorney Mark O'Mara. "He was the one raining blows down on George Zimmerman, correct?"

"That's what it looked like," Good answered.

...

De la Rionda honed in on Good's earlier statement that he couldn't confirm the person on top was hitting the other person. "Correct," Good said.

Here's what Fox underplayed in their apparent zeal to promote the witness' "corroborat(ion) of Zimmerman's claims:" Good never saw Zimmerman's head get slammed into the pavement, as he claimed. In the sixth paragraph of the FoxNews.com article, they got around to mentioning:

But Good said he did not see the person on top slam the other one's head into the pavement. Zimmerman had wounds to his scalp following the confrontation.

Somehow, Fox also left out the point that their own crime scene and forensics expert Mark Fuhrman made on the Hannity show recently: Zimmerman's wounds were not consistent with a beat down on the pavement. Earlier this week Fuhrman said:

Certainly, (Zimmerman) fell backwards and hit his head on the concrete once. His head wasn’t driven into the concrete repeatedly. He had not a broken nose but a bloody nose but he had no lacerations on his face. So I think he got the worst end of a fistfight but his escalation of force to meet the fists of a young man, 158 pounds, that’s on top of him, to shoot him, he eliminated all other escalations of force that he possibly could have used, whether it was a hard object that was anywhere or even striking Trayvon Martin with the gun on the side of the head.

Given that Fox News is so intent on using Fuhrman as one of its mainZimmerman-trialanalysts - and is ignoring the racial cloud over his head in order to do so - it begs the question: why did Fox then ignore his professional assessment?

Do you like this post?

Showing 8 reactions

You admit that Zimmerman caused the confrontation but then try to deny that he has no culpability for its result? You try to blame the whole fight on Trayvon Martin? But the best part is where you try to say that Zimmerman’s only option while losing a fight was to shoot the other guy to death. So if I get in a fight today, and I’m losing the fight, do I have the right to shoot my opponent to death? If that’s the case, we’ve established a whole new standard of conduct in society.

Looking over Hannity’s “analysis” of this case last night, one would need to conclude that he is becoming desperate to find some good news for George Zimmerman. His attempt to sound firm in suddenly announcing that the entire trial is “over” after one witness’ testimony rang more than a little hollow.

There seems to be a strange compulsion among both AM radio and Fox News to create a counter narrative of Zimmerman’s killing of Trayvon Martin. I’ve seen a few versions of it. One version has Martin as a major aggressor. The version espoused by Hannity presents the whole affair as a “tragic misunderstanding”.

Except that he’s presenting a fantasy version of the events. I have yet to hear a real defense of Zimmerman’s shooting of Martin. Even Hannity’s experts told him that Zimmerman’s instigation of the fight automatically disqualified him from claiming he was “standing his ground”. And Zimmerman’s injuries are not consistent with either his story or with the right wing presentation of the fight.

So Let me get this straight Fox. I get pissed at someone so I taunt them into a fight. I let them get a few shots in, and BAM, according to you, I just shot them legally and should not be prosecuted ? Look out Billy Robbins, you Junior High School wedgie, lunch money stealing bully. Depending on the outcome of this case I may soon bump into you in the Street, completely by happenstance of course, on my way home from your local area gun dealer.
Does anybody besides me see this type of scenario becoming a reality if a ‘not guilty’ verdict is handed down for tracking someone down and than creating a situation resulting in an “I HAD to shoot them.” defense?

Yeah, the buildings are white, and they’re dark outside of the light provided for the photos, And it gets that inky in only a few feet. He’d have been better off specifying “Hoodie” or “Jumper Jacket,” assuming he could even see that.

It’s quite possible that Zimmerman may be convicted of 2nd Degree Murder, which will likely result in a much nastier reaction from AM Radio and Fox News.

I’ve been predicting a repeat of the Ramos & Compean situation here, where right wing outlets cite the case as some example of justice gone wrong, but without telling their listeners much of the real information.

In the earlier case, you had two rogue Border Patrol agents shooting a fleeing man in the rear end and then covering up the shooting. This gets morphed in the right wing media into something where somehow the runner has a gun that he’s pointing at the Border Patrol agents while running away. (These outlets never had an explanation of why the agents didn’t take cover or warn anyone of the danger while they were blasting away at him…)

With the current case, the usual pundits seem to want to find Zimmerman innocent in spite of the evidence. I’m really not sure why they’re taking this tact, other than to be contrary. What good can come from gung-ho Neighborhood Watch guys stalking and shooting people in their communities?

I have been cruising the Fux Nation website the last several days for news on the Vigilante George trial. (I have to take a shower each time to wash off the filth). The “fair and balanced” news is so heavily slanted in favor of Vigilante George that it might as well have been written by his defense team. The comments from the Fux Nation turds are the usual racial slurs mixed in with oinks approving Trayvon Martin’s violent death.

When the predominantly white jury convicts Vigilante George of manslaughter, the Fux Nation will have a collective meltdown from all the hatred.